MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TAXATION Sixty-Eighth Session April 27, 1995 The Committee on Taxation was called to order at 1:15 p.m., on Thursday, April 27, 1995, Chairman Jeannine Stroth presiding in Room 332 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bob Price, Chairman Ms. Jeannine Stroth, Chairman Mr. Pete Ernaut, Vice Chairman Mr. Michael A. (Mike) Schneider, Vice Chairman Mr. Morse Arberry, Jr. Mrs. Maureen E. Brower Mrs. Joan A. Lambert Mr. Mark Manendo Mr. John W. Marvel Mr. P. M. Roy Neighbors Mr. Brian Sandoval Mr. Larry L. Spitler COMMITTEE MEMBERS EXCUSED: None GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Mr. Lynn Hettrick STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Ted Zuend, Deputy Fiscal Analyst OTHERS PRESENT: Mr. Tom Stephens, Director, Department of Transportation Mr. Daryl E. Capurro, Nevada Motor Transport Association OTHERS PRESENT, Continued Mr. Peter D. Krueger, State Executive, Nevada Petroleum Marketers Association Mr. Michael A. Pitlock, Executive Director, Department of Taxation Chairman Jeannine Stroth opened the meeting by requesting a roll call and then proceeded with the first item of business on the agenda: ASSEMBLY BILL 415 - Revises provisions relating to imposition and collection of tax on special fuel. Mr. Ted Zuend, Deputy Fiscal Analyst, disseminated a memorandum (Exhibit C), as well as a recap (Exhibit D), on A.B. 415. Chairman Stroth recognized to testify Assemblyman Lynn Hettrick, Assembly District 39. He stated he was the only remaining assembly person who was on the interim study committee who did the highway study. He was present to make a basic introduction of A.B. 415, which addressed the issue of where we should collect the tax and whether or not we could put it in a place where there would be less of a chance to not have the tax collected appropriately. The testimony Mr. Hettrick heard in the interim showed that a move to collect tax at the rack would result in a considerable cost-savings. He thought Mr. Ted Zuend summarized A.B. 415 quite well in his memorandum dated April 27, 1995 (Exhibit C), and Mr. Hettrick quoted from it. A.B. 415 simplified the collection of the tax, which was now being purposely or not purposely evaded. It was a simple point of collection issue. It was not a new or additional tax. Mr. Hettrick then requested permission from the Chair to address A.B. 423 in the same vein. Permission was granted, and Mr. Hettrick proceeded once again to quote from Mr. Zuend's memorandum (Exhibit C) regarding that bill. In a nutshell, what was happening currently was Taxation was "taking a cut before they transferred the balance of the money over to the highway fund." It was a $900,000 "hit" on the general fund one way or the other -- depending on how one looked at it. The interim committee felt it was highway fund and therefore it should go into the highway fund; they thought we should not be "subsidizing" the Taxation department. Chairman Stroth invited Mr. Tom Stephens, Director of the Department of Transportation for the state of Nevada, to come forward and testify. He had not been present when all the work was done on the "subcommittee," but felt they had produced a "very significant" report. He disseminated one of the portions of the report to the Committee (Exhibit E), "Up and Down the Chain: Moving the Point of Taxation on Diesel Fuel." He thought the report to be a straightforward and relatively simple explanation of a very complex issue. The Nevada Department of Transportation was in favor of moving the point of collection and vigorously supported A.B. 415. Mr. Stephens saw four advantages to passage of A.B. 415: (1) It would simplify the tax collection, (2) It would increase the audit effectiveness, (3) It would decrease tax evasion, thus there would be more money in the highway fund, and (4) It would level the playing field among the various people who distributed and sold the diesel because, right now, the dishonest person seemed to be rewarded by being able to undercut the honest person. To testify next, Chairman Stroth recognized both Mr. Raymond Sparks, Acting Deputy Director with the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, and Mr. Bob Hagan, Assistant Chief of the Motor Carrier Bureau. They supported A.B. 415. They had participated in the interim study and had provided testimony to the committee that was examining the issues of how to enhance revenues into the highway fund. Currently, the Motor Carrier Bureau in the Department of Motor Vehicles collected the special fuel tax for Nevada -- primarily diesel fuel, but it also included other types of fuels used to propel motor vehicles. The tax was currently collected at the retail level. It was also collected from users, such as truckers, who traveled through the state but did not purchase the fuel in Nevada; they still had to report to the department and remit the tax to the state. The trend nationally appeared to be to raise the point of taxation for special fuel from the retail level to the what was called the "terminal rack," which is the highest level of distribution in the state. Mr. Sparks explained the motivation for that change and the method of taxation was to minimize the opportunity for fuel tax evasion. Further, by moving the point of taxation to the terminal rack in Nevada, we would be consistent with the federal level of taxation and also be consistent with a number of other states that had already moved their point of taxation. "The states that have done this already have experienced in the range of a 10 to 20 percent increase in revenues in the first year," contended Mr. Sparks. This was primarily because of the better compliance with the tax reporting requirements. Currently, his department raised about $40 million per year in special tax revenue for the state of Nevada. Conservatively estimating, this change would result in a 10 percent increase. There would be at least $4 million additional tax collection for the highway fund. Next to speak in favor of A.B. 415 was Mr. Richards and Mr. Capurro, testifying together. Mr. Daryl Capurro introduced himself as the Managing Director of the Nevada Motor Transport Association and also introduced Mr. Steve Richards, the Manager of Government Relations with Yellow Corporation, a major interstate carrier. They handed out a written testimony (Exhibit F). Mr. Capurro informed the Committee that Mr. Richards was an expert in the field: he had assisted in many other states in the drafting of bills to take the point of taxation from the retail -- or lowest level of distribution -- to the terminal rack level. Also, Mr. Richards had participated in the interim committee process on A.B. 415. Mr. Capurro proceeded to provide a quick background: A federal highway administration study was part of the interim committee testimony that had been provided last year. That study showed the federal government indicated a belief there was at least a 25 percent evasion of the diesel fuel tax on the federal level. "Obviously, that would be consistent on the state level, too," he contended. "Since that time, as a result of that study, the federal government moved the point of taxation to the terminal rack for both gasoline and diesel as of January 1, 1994. They also, at the point, went to dyeing the fuel not used on highways." Currently, clear diesel is used for highway travel by trucks, etc., and dyed fuel is what is used with respect to home heating applications and other off-road uses. But, Mr. Capurro pointed out, "A.B. 415 has a number of problems with it from a drafting standpoint." He wanted the Committee to note the suggested changes to the wording of A.B. 415, which had been agreed upon with various organizations (Department of Motor Vehicles, the Motor Carrier Bureau, major oil companies, et al.). These suggested changes appear as part of (Exhibit F). Consolidated agreements would be presented later. Mr. Capurro mentioned he had testified with the Legislature over the years that they believed people should pay every cent of required tax under law before any increases in taxes are made. If, in fact, the "evasion tax" was the fault of members of the trucking industry, it was the Nevada Motor Transport Association's position that they should pay. They had carriers who diligently paid their taxes and, if there were some who were not, the Association believed they should pay. Further comments on the subject were left to Mr. Richards. Mr. Steve Richards introduced himself as a part of Yellow Corporation, the parent to Yellow Freight System. "Our interest in A.B. 415 is to try to help the states develop the best tax policies so we can ensure the highway revenues needed to maintain and build the roads are there at the lowest cost," explained Mr. Richards. "Obviously, one of those ways is to ensure we have the minimal amount of tax evasion in any tax collection program." Mr. Richards had worked with several states in recent times in putting together similar diesel fuel collection programs. Currently, he was involved in doing a similar project with Kansas, Iowa, and Oregon. The few amendments he offered to the Committee were addressed and explained briefly (Exhibit F). The concerns with the language of A.B. 415 were then discussed. He discussed in detail dyeing of the fuel, diesel fuel exports (technical changes in A.B. 415 required), control of documentation (the 5,200 gallon limitation should be removed), the selling or distributing special fuel from another state destined with Nevada (include border state suppliers so they have the same responsibilities and the state can ensure the collection of the tax from the neighboring business operators). Also, a key provision that seemed to satisfy a lot of the petroleum marketers and distributors in the chain was the ability to defer the payment of tax to the supplier by the ultimate purchaser. While Yellow Corporation supported that bill, there were difficulties a supplier may have if that individual defaulted on the payment of the deferred tax. "What happens," Mr. Richards explained, "is, if I qualify, I may buy the fuel from my supplier. But I have the ability to defer the payment of the tax to that supplier for roughly forty days. If I default on that payment, the supplier has already remitted the tax to the state and is in jeopardy relative to the tax amount." The provisions in A.B. 415 provided for a bad debt deduction in those circumstances; but Yellow Corporation thought it needed to be strengthened to ensure those individuals who defaulted only did it one time and the state has control to ensure they do not continue to buy tax free and default back to the supplier. Another provision was those deferred tax payments should be made to the supplier by electronic fund transfer; but, rather than put that in statute, Mr. Richards thought that could be handled through regulations within the department. Lastly, there were concerns over the handling of kerosene and some abilities to try to sell kerosene tax-free, undyed. They opposed that concept, but understood some of the marketing problems associated with it. Mr. Richards suggested similar dye concepts be required (as the Internal Revenue Service does) with kerosene. The I.R.S. has not made a determination yet whether they want kerosene to be sold tax-free, dyed, or clear. Mr. Richards would support some language in A.B. 415 that would at least "piggy-back" the I.R.S. regulations once they were finalized. Those were the amendments Yellow saw with A.B. 415 they thought would strengthen it. Assemblyman Roy Neighbors wondered if the proposed amendments had been discussed with the Department of Transportation people or the Motor Vehicle Department; Mr. Richards replied affirmatively. The amendments had been reviewed with Mr. Ray Sparks. Mr. Neighbors mentioned his Bill Draft Request (B.D.R.) earlier to do "that very thing" and he had been notified by L.C.B. "there was one floating around...but everyone who had supported it...had been `diselected' (sic)." Mr. Neighbors was pleased to see it "come up before the Board today" as his constituents in rural Nevada very much supported A.B. 415. Chairman Stroth stated her inclination on A.B. 415 -- without hearing further testimony -- was to look to all those who had submitted suggested changes to the bill, have them collaborate, and then present the amendments back to the Committee to be dealt with in a work session. Those interested parties who submit the amendments to Committee would also be a part of the work session. To testify next was Mr. Peter Krueger, representing the Nevada Petroleum Marketers Association, which is the wholesale trade association in Nevada. He agreed with Chairman Stroth that A.B. 415 "definitely" had to go into a work group. He felt it was a very complicated issue; he hoped the Committee had seen Mr. John Sande's suggested changes (Exhibit G). Mr. Krueger was in concurrence with one. However, Mr. Krueger thought there was one suggestion to A.B. 415 in Mr. Sande's letter that was an "example of big oil's attempt to take the whole two percent collection allowance and hang onto it for themselves." Overall, the Nevada Petroleum Marketers supported A.B. 415 -- as long as they could sit down and meet with each of the members and work out issues on refunds. It was a very technical bill, and Mr. Krueger stressed that it was not going to be moved into simply and have the system of collections, distribution, and logistics of diesel fuel work smoothly in the state. Bonding was another big area: the requirement for bonding would shift tremendously. Mr. Krueger had members who were both terminal operators -- generally the terminal operators are the Exxon's, Arco's, etc., -- but he had several members who were also terminal operators, who essentially "wore two hats" under A.B. 415. Regarding kerosene, Mr. Krueger declared he would "hate to have us put something sight unseen in the bill that would allow us to adopt a federal I.R.S. ruling that we had no idea of what it was going to say." Currently, kerosene was dyed and undyed. There is a reason for undyed product: most all people who operate space heaters must use very clear kerosene -- because the manufacturer refuses to allow them to use the dyed product. Reporting was another area that required work. However, Mr. Krueger expressed his confidence that things could be worked out together. They, too, wanted any chance evasion and diversion of tax stopped -- because that obviously took the pressure off for additional special fuel taxes. Assemblyman Joan Lambert was curious about the two percent collection allowance, which seemed to her to be fairly large compared to some of the other collection allowances, like sales tax. She requested some background from somebody on why that was so. Mr. Krueger replied that it was referred to as a "collection allowance," but by statute it was really a shrinkage and collection allowance. Petroleum products are delivered at one temperature and, once they are in the underground tank, the actual volume of that product can increase and decrease depending upon temperature. The allowance was a method to help compensate for the loss of product when that occurred. There was also shrinkage through spillage. Seeing there were no more people wishing to testify for or against A.B. 415, Chairman Stroth closed the hearing. The hearing was formally opened on Assembly Bill 423. ASSEMBLY BILL 423 - Transfers responsibility for collection of taxes and fees imposed on certain fuel from department of taxation to department of motor vehicles and public safety. Mr. Ted Zuend's summary of A.B. 423 (Exhibit H) was before the Committee members for their perusal. Chairman Stroth recognized Mr. Daryl Capurro wished to speak in favor of the bill, who advised that A.B. 423 was a recommendation from the interim committee for consideration by the full legislative session. Essentially, the consolidation of the function of the collection of the tax, both on special fuel and gasoline, in one agency was thought to be an extremely intelligent way to handle that situation. In other words, Mr. Capurro summarized the current situation where gasoline tax was collected by the Department of Taxation -- they have their own staff, auditors, and others; while the Department of Motor Vehicles collected the diesel tax and the taxes on other special fuels -- and, once again, have their own staff to do this. Because of this, what could happen was a retailer (a truck stop, service station, et al.) could (and sometimes does) face an audit from an audit from the Department of Motor Vehicles on diesel fuel one week, and the next week a Department of Taxation auditor on gasoline tax collection. A.B. 423 could consolidate the effort into one area so their collection and distribution of all fuel taxes could be tracked more efficiently. It also had to do with the fact there was approximately a $1 million diversion from the highway fund, which was a violation of Article 5, Section 9 of the Nevada Constitution. The Constitution was fairly rigid with respect to what excise taxes from gasoline and registrations could be used for. The one problem Mr. Capurro saw was the lateness in which A.B. 423 came before the Committee on Taxation put the agency and the state in a bind to be able to do it as of the effective date written into the law currently. Therefore, Mr. Capurro suggested the effective date on A.B. 423 be amended to July 1, 1997. His reasoning was that it would take us through the biennium as he believed the tax committees had either closed -- or come close to closing -- the budget for the Department of Taxation. Rather than having to re-open the budget and go into those areas to find another $1 million to supplement their operations, this would provide a two year window for that to be dealt with. In addition, this would put all of the tax collecting element for highway fund monies into one agency -- what Mr. Capurro referred to as a "one-stop shopping" situation. He thought that made a good deal of sense, as well. Assemblyman John Marvel concurred that Mr. Capurro had recited his big concern, too. He asked if Mr. Capurro could envision transferring that function from the Department of Taxation over to the Department of Transportation. Mr. Capurro replied negatively: the transfer would be made to the Department of Motor Vehicles. He added that they had worked on the issue before last session, but the same problem developed at that time, rather late in the session. That was why it was a part of the interim study. The former Director of Taxation desired that, if the transfer of the collection were made, the employees would be transferred as well. Which would only make sense, Mr. Capurro concluded, for those employees were the ones most familiar with the collection of gasoline tax. That had been pretty much agreed to. Assemblyman Marvel's concern was that "we just had to bail out" the Department of Taxation over $1.5 million. He had no idea of how to make up the $900,000 or $1 million. This would be a definite impact on the general fund. "Again," Mr. Capurro reiterated, "this way you could plan for it for the next biennium rather than having to mess with the budget this time. That is why we suggest that be done." "Very thoughtful consideration, Mr. Capurro," acknowledged Assemblyman Marvel. There being no further questions for Mr. Capurro, the Chair recognized Mr. Michael A. Pitlock, Executive Director of the Nevada Department of Taxation. After Mr. Pitlock formally introduced himself, he announced that A.B. 423 would significantly impact the budget of the Department of Taxation. But, assuming that an amendment would be included in the Bill to "push off" the effective date until after the upcoming biennium, the department would have no difficulty with the passage of A.B. 423. He agreed with Mr. Capurro that two years would provide them the opportunity to plan how to accommodate the significant impact on their budget. It was not simply a matter of transferring employees and functions that cost exactly $1 million in exchange for that $1 million in revenue. That was not how the $1 million number was determined in the first place. The opportunity for the Department of Taxation to plan on how to accommodate the impact would be very helpful; without that, it would be devastating to the agency. He also indicated, from a general policy standpoint, the department supported any effort that would cause taxes to be collected in the most efficient manner. If consolidation and consistency in the treatment of all fuel taxes would result in overall savings, they would support that. Assemblyman Marvel commented to Mr. Pitlock that he was not sure if he had an opportunity to do a cost benefit analysis yet, but wondered how much he thought it could save in the budget by moving just that function out of the Department of Taxation. Mr. Pitlock replied they had looked at it in very general terms. He could not provide any specific dollars, but felt there was a very significant difference between the actual reduction in cost because of transferring employees and functions, and the approximate $1 million in flow from the highway fund from the general fund. Assemblyman Roy Neighbors entered the conversation by stating, "You are aware of the Constitution as far as it applies to the use of special fuel. Secondly, how big of a staff does it take to do that?" "I believe there are currently only four or five individuals at the department," Mr. Pitlock replied, "who allocate 100 percent of their time to this function." But there were many other individuals who allocated a portion of their time. In terms of the constitutional question, Mr. Pitlock had no argument with that whatsoever. He told the Committee that he was not trying to indicate this should not happen; he was simply indicating they needed time to plan for it to ensure the transition took place in an orderly manner. The only other person who had signed up to speak on A.B. 423 was Ms. Carole Vilardo of the Nevada Taxpayers Association, but she had left the meeting to testify in another. There being no one else who wished to testify and no further questions, the formal hearing on A.B. 423 was closed by Chairman Stroth. The work session was declared open. The first bill under consideration was Assembly Bill 394. ASSEMBLY BILL 394 - Increases discount allowed to cigarette dealers for service if placing revenue stamps on cigarette packages. Mr. C. O. Watson, Executive Director of the Nevada Association of Tobacco & Candy Wholesalers, was not present. However, Mr. Watson had submitted a letter (Exhibit I) to the Committee on Taxation that contained facts to show how the industry's business operation expenses had increased and volume and/or production had decreased, resulting in a drastic increase in the cost of operation. ASSEMBLYMAN PETE ERNAUT MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 394. ASSEMBLYMAN JOHN MARVEL SECONDED THE MOTION. Assemblyman Ernaut perused Mr. Watson's letter (Exhibit I) and remarked that to him, as well as any businessman, an increase in cost of operation in conjunction with a decrease in demand would dictate management decrease cost of operation through salaries or by trying to eliminate inefficiencies and those types of things. But asking the Committee on Taxation to pay for the drastic downturn in cigarette consumption through funds that would go to the general funds and counties, Mr. Ernaut thought was "absolutely inappropriate." There being no further discussion on A.B. 394, Chairman Stroth put it to the vote to Indefinitely Postpone A.B. 394. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. ******** Next, the Committee addressed Assemblyman Dennis Allard's Assembly Bill 69. ASSEMBLY BILL 69 - Provides partial exemption from business tax for businesses that employee certain pupils. Chairman Stroth suggested that line six of A.B. 69 be amended to DELETE "the total number" and ADD "an equal amount" so that it would read (from line five): " . . . may exclude the total number of hours worked by the pupil in that quarter, and an equal amount of hours worked by one full-time employee . . ." ASSEMBLYMAN ERNAUT MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS. ASSEMBLYMAN JOAN LAMBERT SECONDED THE MOTION. The Chair asked if there was any discussion. Assemblyman Marvel said he would vote in favor of it on the condition that he not be committed to it. Seeing no further comments, and with the Committee having heard the motion, Chairman Stroth had a vote taken. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. ******** A.B. 69 was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means. The next issue discussed in the work session was Assembly Bill 257. ASSEMBLY BILL 257 - Directs issuance of Nevada Silver Gaming Tokens. ASSEMBLYMAN MAUREEN BROWER MOTIONED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 257. ASSEMBLYMAN JOAN LAMBERT SECONDED THE MOTION. Assemblyman Pete Ernaut desired to provide a historical background on the bill from where it was in last session to its present form. He informed the bill had come up several times, and he had been a "one man subcommittee on it last time." When it first started out, it was basically a bill to mint our own money. That was OBVIOUSLY unconstitutional. Next, they tried to move it toward a form in which the token would a commemorative souvenir for the resorts to give away. But the resorts DID NOT WANT TO DO IT. If the resorts did not want to do it, there was really no need to do it. In addition, minting our own money was a provision that was still (basically) in A.B. 257; therefore, Mr. Ernaut thought the bill was unconstitutional. Assemblyman Larry Spitler commented that Mr. Ernaut might bring the bill to perfection if he were just to continue to work on it. Mr. Ernaut had no comment. Chairman Stroth asked if there was any further discussion. There being none, he took a vote upon the motion to Indefinitely Postpone A.B. 257. THE MOTION CARRIED, WITH TWO NO VOTES FROM ASSEMBLYMAN ROY NEIGHBORS AND ASSEMBLYMAN BOB PRICE. ******** ASSEMBLY BILL 423 - Transfers responsibility for collection of taxes and fees imposed on certain fuel from department of taxation to department of motor vehicles and public safety. ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 423. ASSEMBLYMAN ERNAUT AND ASSEMBLYMAN SPITLER SECONDED THE MOTION. Chairman Stroth recognized Mr. Ted Zuend, who commented on A.B. 423, saying that, if the bill were to be approved, the Department of Motor Vehicles would attempt to collect the tax exactly like the proposal in A.B. 415, which is at the terminal rack level. If that were to be done, a problem would result because of the local portions of the gasoline tax. Part of the local portions of the gasoline tax went to where the retail is located. The Department of Taxation collected it at the last wholesale level before it went to the retailer so that the wholesaler could identify how much was sold into what county. That way, all those counties received their share based on how much was being sold in their county. If the DMV were to do it, and if the other bill were to pass (and it was Mr. Zuend's thought that this may be more than Ways and Means could handle if they elect to move with this bill), he stressed there would have to be some way to distribute the local gas taxes so that it would approximate the current distribution. Maybe go into population, or some other basis. Assemblyman Joan Lambert wondered about the retail establishments that sell gasoline now, generally sell tires, oil, -- and in some cases food, etc. The Department of Taxation had to go out and audit them for the sales tax. "Were there not any of them that only sold gasoline and thus would not have any sales tax whatsoever that they paid?" asked Ms. Lambert. She was informed the gasoline tax was collected from the wholesaler, so that was not an issue. The Taxation Department did not audit a retailer for the sale of gasoline. There was no further discussion regarding the motion to amend and do pass A.B. 423. The amendment to A.B. 423 was the date change to July 1, 1997. Chairman Stroth called for a vote. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. ******** Assemblyman Price informed the Committee that for many years there has been a tax on "gerovital," which raised approximately $10,000 a year. He thought a Bill Draft Request should be initiated to eliminate/repeal the tax. Assemblyman Maureen Brower wondered how many sources for "gerovital" there were, to which Mr. Price replied that Marvin Kratter was the only source of manufacture for the drug that he was aware of. A formal request from Assemblyman Mark Manendo was for research to be done before a bill draft was initiated, but the general consensus of the Committee was research was not really necessary. Mr. Price thought it was illogical to have a state tax to collect only $10,000 -- even if it were collected from two or three people. "Why don't we just get the bill drafted?" Assemblyman Ernaut asserted. "We can debate whether we want to do it or not after we see the bill draft." Chairman Stroth was not exactly sure of what "gerovital" was. Mr. Price explained that "gerovital" was similar to "laetrile." It was a "type of medicine" comprised of crushed up apricot pits. He said people used to go to Mexico to get it. ASSEMBLYMAN BOB PRICE MOTIONED TO INITIATE A BILL DRAFT REQUEST TO ELIMINATE THE TAX ON "GEROVITAL" AND "LAETRILE." ASSEMBLYMAN MAUREEN BROWER SECONDED THE MOTION. There being no further discussion on the motion for a Bill Draft Request, a vote was taken. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. ******** Chairman Stroth requested from Mr. Price the amended committee rules. Mr. Price said he did not have those with him, hence the subject was dismissed for the time being. Seeing there was no old business, new business, or further discussion, Ms. Stroth formally adjourned the meeting at 3:45 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Carolyn Grabski, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Assemblyman Bob Price, Chairman Assemblyman Jeannine Stroth, Chairman Assembly Committee on Taxation April 27, 1995 Page